frogman1484
Thats exactly what I am saying...we need 258 aircraft by end of 2020 to keep the growth rate we have had for the last 5 years. At that rate a new joiner will get his command in about 12-13 years.
There are two ameliorating factors to that time to command. One, not everyone will actually work through to 65 - I would work on the assumption that the average would be say 60 - ie, 5 more years. Two, the failure/Cat B rate we have had for the last 5 years might knock a year or so off that command time if it continues. Its hard to say for sure as obviously cat Bs might have a go at a later time. We currently have around 130+ FOs on the seniority list higher than the most junior CN - not sure what category they all are.
Why RA65? A couple of reasons...eventually at outports it will become a requirement. CX has been offering extensions(C+T) or freighters(line CNs) for a while now so that it cannot be accused of age discrimination. The second reason...the major constraint on CX right now is training. Every extendee saves a few courses. So initially there are some savings to RA65 but they are wiped out by higher average PER pilot wage bills within 5 years.
Maybe a numerical example will help. Lets say I am at 55 now and on SCN 17 (A scale). Not counting my travel fund I cost 56% more than a brand new B scale CN - to put it numerically I will earn over $800K more than him in one year. Even a B scale SCN17 earns $560K more than him.
While that FO isn't upgraded to CN1, he earns a higher increment on the SFO scale and likewise for the SO. So the cost per cockpit goes up.
Additionally every extendee is a guaranteed captain...no Cat B, no failures or extensions. Based on the last few years it seems to take 120-140 candidates to achieve 100 CNs. So there are additional training course savings.
This is not about saving money - this is about saving courses.
Last edited by Numero Crunchero; 5th Sep 2007 at 01:46.
Reason: Meant to say 2020 not 2010 - changed now